Blurred Boundaries and Strategic Surveillance: Regulating Behaviour in Bristol’s Commercialised Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores how models of architecture, surveillance, and ownership define commercialised spaces, and in turn dictate how these spaces are experienced – not only by their users but also by the ethnographer. I argue that the supposedly inclusive and open design of Cabot Circus in the city centre of Bristol, UK, has resulted in a privatised, impersonal and exclusionary shopping centre. Its mode of operation and regulation threatens to encroach on the adjacent publicly accessible commercial area of Broadmead, through events like the Christmas market, which blurs the boundaries between the two environments. By reflecting on the difficulties I faced as an ethnographer when attempting to conform to my expected role in the space as an active and visible participant, I suggest that power has become so deeply embedded in the contemporary shopping centre that an innovative and reflexive methodological approach is necessary to capture the true machinations of the privatisation of urban public space. By directing attention towards recent efforts to privatise law enforcement and regulate visitor behaviour in these reconfigured commercialised spaces, this research also raises more ‘fundamental questions about how urban citizenship and social exclusion are defined’, simultaneously exposing the ‘importance of consumption… to daily urban life’ (Flint, 2002: 66).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".